The end of hands-off-Hillary

Wednesday’s hearing on Benghazi raised many questions — but provided at least one answer:

Republicans now seem willing to cast the State Department response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Libya as a referendum on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fitness to lead the country — and are abandoning a long-held hands-off-Hillary strategy rooted in her popularity with women of all races, ages and political stripes.

Story Continued Below

Clinton’s name was invoked over and over during the hearing (a blogger for Foreign Policy counted 32 mentions), with the committee airing testimony from department officials that she failed to sign off on efforts to rescue Ambassador Chris Stevens and two aides, a minute-by-minute exploration of her involvement — including a 2 a.m. phone call that echoed her famous “3 a.m.” ad in 2008 — and reported efforts by Clinton’s most trusted aide, Cheryl Mills, to dissuade State Department staff from briefing a Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a conservative firebrand known for his love of publicity.

“Secretary Clinton said herself that she takes responsibility and yesterday’s hearings raised serious questions that need to be answered about the lack of response to cables requesting additional security in Benghazi,” said Tim Miller, spokesman for America Rising PAC, a new GOP-aligned opposition research group funded by former officials with Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

“The testimony also called into question why Secretary Clinton’s response to the attack was so different than the reports she received directly from those on the ground.”

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos called the connection between Benghazi and Clinton’s political future easy — and completely justified.

“Remember when Hillary described the Clinton presidency as ‘two-for-one’? Now it’s two-for-one again: If Republicans hold her boss accountable for his failure in Benghazi, Hillary’s political future is tarnished,” Castellanos said.

He added, “Hillary Clinton had the misfortune to be Secretary of State for a weak and vision-less president on whose watch the world has unraveled. Then Mrs. Clinton made three mistakes of her own: one, she didn’t protect the people under her care in Benghazi. Two she said ‘what difference does it make?’ And three she’s allowed a cover-up in her own State Department. Her political future is being decided now, as Congress investigates the Benghazi scandal. Three strikes and she’s out. It is increasingly looking like the only president named Clinton may be Bill.”

The totality of the criticism, one longtime Obama aide told POLITICO, was a “clear effort to undermine” her — and to punch through the larger public’s disinterest in another Benghazi deep dive.

“Of course they are targeting Hillary. The idea that Hillary hating ever went away is insane. It was just dormant,” says former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville, echoing the view of other Clinton backers.